Quote from: frankieG on October 19, 2008, 01:35:40 PM
there is more evidence that jesus DID NOT exist than that he did.  please read and see below, personally i don't believe in fairly tales.   give the movie a few minutes to get up to speed.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/JesusHist.html


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197

Your first link was of an essay that only stated about potential discrepancies, and there was only one item sited, and I couldn't find any sitings for that site.  Dead end.

I don't have time to watch that long of a movie.  Can you give a summary.

Also, are you an evolutionist?  I'd just like to know where you are coming from.

Quote from: frankieG on October 19, 2008, 01:35:40 PM
there is more evidence that jesus DID NOT exist than that he did.  please read and see below, personally i don't believe in fairly tales.   give the movie a few minutes to get up to speed.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/JesusHist.html


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197

There is so much (reliable, which is more than we can say about the counter claim) evidence to the proof that Jesus existed, that it is beyond comprehension to believe for one second that he did not.  Sure you can argue the fact that he is the Savior or not (which there is evidence of this as well, but a different argument than you're presenting), but to say that he didn't even exist is ignoring all the evidence that he did, and listening to the few nuts that have no credible sources to the books they've written.

Read this for an explanation of your arguments, and why those arguments don't hold water.
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

"It is a sure sign of desperation: In disbelieving circles, one of the most popular ideas to come to the fore recently is the "Jesus-myth" - the idea that Jesus did not even exist, much less conduct a ministry as described in the New Testament."

"At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have)."

"Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven."

"The evidence is clear: The Jesus-myth is a groundless speculation, contrary to all evidence, and totally without basis. Here are our concluding thoughts on the matter:

I have personally come to the conclusion that adherence to the "Jesus-myth" is not the result of careful deliberation of the evidence, but rather, is the product and province of skeptical minds in the grips of an obsession. Long ago, I presented the information on Tacitus above to a Jesus-mythicist - whose ONLY source of data was G. A. Wells. He replied with implications that Tacitus was secretly in league with the Christians of his time! Then, in reply to the opinions of professional and distinguished historians regarding Wells' work, he simply suggested that they had not read Wells carefully, or even at all!

Some may say that this is merely abberational, but it is not: It is the modus operandi of the Jesus-myth circle. One well-known skeptic, Gordon Stein, cited as an authority on Josephus the works of Nathaniel Lardner - from the year 1838! There was no hint that Stein has consulted the works of modern Josephan scholars like Thackery and Feldman; there are no Taciteans, no cites from known experts in Greek and Roman history; instead, the bibliography of his report is bookended with works from G. A. Wells and Arthur Drews! Is this the work of a reasonable person, or someone in the grips of obsession?"

I dunno why you are obsessed with proving that jesus existed.

Hinduism very much bases everything on the fact that they (all the deities and very much most of the "holy saints") didn't exist.

That way there are no useless fights about religion. We all know its all make believe. It is only a way to live. One hindu never tells another hindu ... What would vishnu do ?

Proof of existence exists in japan's shinto (your ancestors basically), buddhism (600 or so years ago), Sikh (10 guru's who interpreted hinduism and fought the moguls) and jainism (whi I believe reinterpreted hinduism and turned it into worshipping money - just my opinion) ... essentially these and usually no fights about religion there either. Maybe japaneese will claim my grandpa can beat up your grandpa ... maybe. Dunno.

It doesn't exist. That is what makes it special.
Cool.
Buddha.

This Buddha is not affiliated with the other buddha, but I would like to create a religion ... antiquated bike-ism. Its a real religion where we pray to our antiquated bike and hope it does not die on the road, and believe it will get us back from where it has taken us. Its the way of the relic ... the manual is the holy book, and this web site is your place of worship, as is the junkyard. That is like the cemetry and laying flowers = paying the guys for the rust filled crap you haul off from there.

Once again we've gotten off topic...the info is out there, so people will believe what they believe...now back to politics.

Over this thread, there have been many issues that have been brought up, and not discussed.  Seems to get off topic and attacks start getting thrown.  So I'd like to bring back some issues that I'd still like to discuss.

Birth Certificate/Indonesian Citizen issue - page 32 / about half way down

Louis Farrakhan issue  - Christian church giving Muslim man an award...Muslim man should have Fatwah against him for that.- page 30 / about half way down

Obama's Voting History compared to what he says in his campaign

How he's changed his platform 6 months ago to present

And all the other Scandles I posted that were entirely overlooked - on page 22 / about 1/4 way down.

Awaiting all of the LW ppl to coem along and say its RW propaganda  cant win for losing

Looks like no one wants to talk about these issues.  They are relevant.  This man could be our president.  Everything is relevant.  Now lets discuss these things.

No, quiktaco, these are NOT the issues.  The issues are being discussed and frankly macain cannot address them. Enough conspiracy theory.

I am not left wing by any means. But anyone that thinks barak is not a US citizen is frankly an idiot and doesn't deserve a comment.
Your telling me that since he went to school as a child in indonesia (which my wife's son happened to do when we were there on business for 2 years) he had to lose his ciizenship. Ahhh think again. We are all proud americans and all have US citizenship.

This is such a ridiculous thread that I refuse to invite more stupid comments. (See page 32 halfway down???)

Quote from: alois71 on October 21, 2008, 01:08:45 PM
No, quiktaco, these are NOT the issues.  The issues are being discussed and frankly macain cannot address them. Enough conspiracy theory.

I am not left wing by any means. But anyone that thinks barak is not a US citizen is frankly an idiot and doesn't deserve a comment.
Your telling me that since he went to school as a child in indonesia (which my wife's son happened to do when we were there on business for 2 years) he had to lose his ciizenship. Ahhh think again. We are all proud americans and all have US citizenship.

This is such a ridiculous thread that I refuse to invite more stupid comments. (See page 32 halfway down???)

You obviously haven't read much of my opinions an such on these topics.  I wanted to discuss these things because they are relevant.  The issue with his citizenship is that during the time he attended school there, Indonesia required citizenship, and did not allow dual citizenship.  My thoughts on this issue are that the DNC wouldn't have passed him through if they knew this about this, so I believe that he is a citizen.  Just a topic of discussion.

All these other 'conspiracy theories' as you call them, are mostly facts.  Some theories, but mostly facts.  Read through this thread, it might take a while, but you'll learn a lot about this man that you may not have known.  Always research on your own also.  Don't take anything as fact until you find your own sources to either confirm or deny.  Most of what I've posted is posted for discussion, then I'll research about it, then make up my mind on the issue.  You should really look at page 22 with all the issues of Obama.  Most things are complete facts, some things are theories, other things are issues on voting records and such.

Quote from: quiktaco on October 21, 2008, 12:52:43 PM
Looks like no one wants to talk about these issues.  They are relevant.  This man could be our president.  Everything is relevant.  Now lets discuss these things.

No one wants to play your game of "I cut and paste ridiculous charges from RW sites which I proclaim to be true until someone debunks them?"  What a pity.  Sad face.  You claim you want to talk issues but you post slime.

The GOP slime attacks aren't working as well this year.  Maybe a majority of the American people have realized that they can't believe what McCain tells them in attack ads and what gets posted and reposted and reposted and reposted on RW smear sites. 

Thanks for avoiding the issues once again.

Instead of saying these issues are just smear tactics, why don't you show us that they are.  I've only been able to find more and more damning evidence the deeper I look into things.  And very few things saying the opposite.  Most liberals will do just what you are doing, and ignore the topics brought up, or say they are completely false.

Why don't you be the one liberal on the internet that will face these issues, and then we can have a good debate over these things.

Putting all contraversy aside, these are the issues that people need to know about.  This is what Obama will be doing in office.  This is exactly why our votes matter.  The Democratic party will have a strong majority, and almost anything that they propose will get passed.  Almost no checks and balances.  We will never recover from a lot of this.  Pay close attention to what will really happen, because this is the real change that Obama is talking about.

(found the link to this from another thread on here)

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

in the last debate, obama seemed like he wanted to talk more about where they stood on issues such as health care, the economy etc. mccain seemed more intent on who obama knows, who he associates with past and prresent etc. instead of saying why we should vote for him(mccain) he seemed intent on bashing his oppononet and trying to say we shouldn't vote obama. he never came out and said it but i got the opinion that mccain and his campaign are feeling outclassed by a better speaker and smarter individual. so they choose to attack him. obama said something to the effect of, "the fact that mr. ayers is such a center piece for your campaign against me says more about you and your campaign then it does about me."

Quote from: quiktaco on October 21, 2008, 02:36:07 PM
Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

These three isolated quotes prove that you do not understand what you are talking about.

Felons already have the right to vote in many states after they have served their time.  Why should they not be able to vote after they have paid their debt to society?

The Fairness Doctrine ensures that corporate media (who get the use of radio and TV frequencies free of charge) must give equal time to both parties.  Just like deregulation of financial companies led to the credit crisis and financial collapse, deregulation in media (removal of the Fairness Doctrine which USED to be law, and removal of laws governing media ownership) gave rise to huge media companies which own a huge percentage of radio and TV stations, many in the very same market area (can you say monopoly?  I thought you could).  If a station had played four hours of Rush Limbaugh under the fairness doctrine, they would have had to give equal voice to the other side.  Otherwise, those with the money and media ownership control what is spread over the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves (which is exactly what we have now).

You have just bought into the corporate definition of Net Neutrality as well.  Net Neutrality ensures that AT&T or Verizon cannot restrict your internet service at their whim.  Net Freedom is a more likely name for it.

Working people voting for Republicans is like chicken voting for Col. Sanders. 

QuoteThese three isolated quotes prove that you do not understand what you are talking about.

Thanks for the attack and avoiding the issues again.  Haven't got my daily serving yet.

This was copied from a post, so I guess it's the website that doesn't know what they're talking about...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

You missed all the other topics that this post listed.  What about redistribution of wealth?  What about increased taxes?  What about Union strong arming?  What about taking away freedom of speech?  What about the right to own a gun?

Voting liberal is like a dumbass voting for a liberal

As Americans render what Catholics call temporal judgment on President Bush, are they aware of the radical course correction they are about to make?

This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history. Consider.

As of today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, anticipates gains of 15-30 seats. Sen. Harry Reid, whose partisanship grates even on many in his own party, may see his caucus expand to a filibuster-proof majority where he can ignore Republican dissent.

Headed for the White House is the most left-wing member of the Senate, according to the National Journal. To the vice president's mansion is headed Joe Biden, third most liberal as ranked by the National Journal, ahead of No. 4, Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders.

What will this mean to America? An administration that is either at war with its base or at war with the nation.

America may desperately desire to close the book on the Bush presidency. [But is shifting to the far, far left the way to do it?]

I think this says it all...

"Since securing the nomination, Obama has adopted the Scalia position on the death penalty for child rape and the right to keep a handgun in the home. He voted to give the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding in Bush wiretaps. This one-time sympathizer of the Palestinians now does a passable imitation of Ariel Sharon. [along with many other flip-flops]

Though he comes out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left, Obama has shed past positions like support for partial birth abortion as well as past associations, from William Ayers to ACORN, from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to his fellow parishioners at Trinity United.

One question remains: Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the Left that brought him the nomination or resist his ex-comrades' demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jackson and Wright have long dreamed of?

Whichever way he decides, he will be at war with them, or at war with us. If Obama wins, a backlash is coming."

Jesus DID exist and "walk " on the face of the earth. He was a VERY supernatural being..........and did some very super natural things.
Even the ones that hated his guts and led to his demise admit that to this very day.

Of course one could side with a sect like the scientologists and say we came from clams............or another sect that says we came from monkeys that came from that which swam in the ocean...........

And I'll say that even today, there are those that still look like apes and act like wild unabashed savages........and I'm correct.
They are those that did NOT evolve to any greater extent. And then there were those who created vast civilizations and science.
And I'll leave you to think deeply about that. And of course (concerning the pc liberals) to lie to yourself.

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 21, 2008, 01:22:17 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on October 21, 2008, 12:52:43 PM
Looks like no one wants to talk about these issues.  They are relevant.  This man could be our president.  Everything is relevant.  Now lets discuss these things.

No one wants to play your game of "I cut and paste ridiculous charges from RW sites which I proclaim to be true until someone debunks them?"  What a pity.  Sad face.  You claim you want to talk issues but you post slime.

The GOP slime attacks aren't working as well this year.  Maybe a majority of the American people have realized that they can't believe what McCain tells them in attack ads and what gets posted and reposted and reposted and reposted on RW smear sites. 

well you do the same thing  from LW sites so why not lol.  here have an e-beer ill get the e-popcorn